Azcapotzalco crushes the Aztecs in their infancy?

[Vinization]

Before the rise of the Aztec Empire, the Valley of Mexico was dominated by the city of Azcapotzalco, which had Tenochtitlan as its vassal. Eventually the latter grew too big for its britches, and so it allied with Texcoco and Tlacopan in a successful campaign to overthrow their overlord, which was suffering from political instability after the death of its longtime ruler Tezozomoc (who apparently lived until the age of 106?).

So what if Azcapotzalco defeats the soon-to-become Triple Alliance, and reaffirms its dominance over the Valley of Mexico? Could its rulers use the failed rebellion as an excuse to end the defeated cities' political autonomy, and thus potentially centralize to a degree similar to what the Purépecha/Tarascans achieved, rather than the mostly independent tributaries and vassals the Mexica had?

 

[Taunay]

Could this prevent Spanish conquest?

 

[Vinization]

Could this prevent Spanish conquest?

The OTL circumstances will definitely be butterflied, but the rest will depend on whether the Tepanecs stay in the Valley of Mexico or expand further afield, and if they do, if they build an old school tributary empire or create a genuinely centralized state.

 

[Taunay]

The OTL circumstances will definitely be butterflied, but the rest will depend on whether the Tepanecs stay in the Valley of Mexico or expand further afield, and if they do, if they build an old school tributary empire or create a genuinely centralized state.

The more centralized, the harder a Spanish conquest will be, especially if this centralization and (possible) lack of human sacrifices result in better demographics even after smallpox

 

[PeterEzgo]

The more centralized, the harder a Spanish conquest will be, especially if this centralization and (possible) lack of human sacrifices result in better demographics even after smallpox

I would argue the opposite. The more centralized a state they find, the easier it will be for the Spanish (or whoever) to take over the center and rule from there. For example, the Aztecs were taken over fairly easily while the Mayan city-states held on much longer at least in part because there was no central authority to topple.

 

[Arkenfolm]

So what if Azcapotzalco defeats the soon-to-become Triple Alliance, and reaffirms its dominance over the Valley of Mexico? Could its rulers use the failed rebellion as an excuse to end the defeated cities' political autonomy, and thus potentially centralize to a degree similar to what the Purépecha/Tarascans achieved, rather than the mostly independent tributaries and vassals the Mexica had?

Centralisation doesn't really fit the Nahua political model, especially since Azcapotzalco itself was a part of a "triple alliance" (which looks to have deep symbolic/spiritual roots given there's other examples in the Nahua world).

 

[Vinization]

I would argue the opposite. The more centralized a state they find, the easier it will be for the Spanish (or whoever) to take over the center and rule from there. For example, the Aztecs were taken over fairly easily while the Mayan city-states held on much longer at least in part because there was no central authority to topple.

On the other hand, the Maya's decentralization meant they had much less, if any, a chance of mustering the strength needed to keep the Spanish out for good. They could only slow the tide, not stop or reverse it.

Centralisation doesn't really fit the Nahua political model, especially since Azcapotzalco itself was a part of a "triple alliance" (which looks to have deep symbolic/spiritual roots given there's other examples in the Nahua world).

Do you know who they were allied to? Plus, the Aztecs gradually centralized power in Tenochtitlan (as shown by its tlatoani taking the title of huey tlatoani in Ahuitzotl's reign, and Moctezuma II's interference in Nezahualpilli's succession) as time went by IOTL. A failed rebellion could give Maxtla or whoever rules Acapotzalco tighten his grip over the other cities in the Valley of Mexico to the point any alliance is only nominal.

 

[PeterEzgo]

On the other hand, the Maya's decentralization meant they had much less, if any, a chance of mustering the strength needed to keep the Spanish out for good. They could only slow the tide, not stop or reverse it.

I don't think any meso-american polity had a good chance of keeping the Spanish (or some other European power) out for good. The technological disparity was just too great. Cortez may have gotten lucky to conquer the Aztec so quickly and easily but Europeans had no problem taking over practically every state in the Americas. It would take a POD very far back to get significant states that could resist European imperialism and colonialism long term.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Do you know who they were allied to? Plus, the Aztecs gradually centralized power in Tenochtitlan (as shown by its tlatoani taking the title of huey tlatoani in Ahuitzotl's reign, and Moctezuma II's interference in Nezahualpilli's succession) as time went by IOTL. A failed rebellion could give Maxtla or whoever rules Acapotzalco tighten his grip over the other cities in the Valley of Mexico to the point any alliance is only nominal.

According to this, it was Xaltocan and Coatlichan.

 

[Vinization]

According to this, it was Xaltocan and Coatlichan.

Thanks.

 

[Vinization]

I don't think any meso-american polity had a good chance of keeping the Spanish (or some other European power) out for good. The technological disparity was just too great. Cortez may have gotten lucky to conquer the Aztec so quickly and easily but Europeans had no problem taking over practically every state in the Americas. It would take a POD very far back to get significant states that could resist European imperialism and colonialism long term.

My view is that the biggest disadvantage the Mesoamericans had IOTL was political, not technological. They were either full of vassals who were effectively independent (and thus could act like a fifth column) on the Aztecs' case, or had no political unity whatsoever in the case of the Maya. The Purépecha were the only exception, but by the time they came in contact with the Europeans it was too late.

Cortés' success set up the gold standard (😆) for future Spanish expeditions in the Americas IOTL, so if he's defeated those who show up in the next few years might be more interested in trade and setting up diplomatic relations. This will be easier if the Tepanecs don't amp up the cult of Huitzilopochtli (a decision made out of political convenience) to the extent the Aztecs did.

 

[PeterEzgo]

My view is that the biggest disadvantage the Mesoamericans had IOTL was political, not technological. They were either full of vassals who were effectively independent (and thus could act like a fifth column) on the Aztecs' case, or had no political unity whatsoever in the case of the Maya. The Purépecha were the only exception, but by the time they came in contact with the Europeans it was too late.

Cortés' success set up the gold standard (😆) for future Spanish expeditions in the Americas IOTL, so if he's defeated those who show up in the next few years might be more interested in trade and setting up diplomatic relations. This will be easier if the Tepanecs don't amp up the cult of Huitzilopochtli (a decision made out of political convenience) to the extent the Aztecs did.

I don't agree. Like, at all.

If the Purépecha were better set up to avoid Spanish conquest, why was their defeat so quick, easy, and complete that most history's don't even bother to talk about it? This kind of thinking reminds me of people who argue that longbows were superior to early gunpowder weapons when every state in Europe abandoned bow weapons for gunpowder weapons. If you analysis leads you to conclusions that are very different from history, it is more likely that your analysis is wrong than history was.

And blaming conquistadors on Cortes is getting too much into "great man" history. Even if Cortes is defeated, the Spanish and other Europeans will continue to press at native states because that is what they do. They did not live in our modern world with (at least attempts at) respect for other cultures. They lived in a world where "might makes right" and "right of conquest" were accepted law. When they sense weakness (which they will, especially once the smallpox epidemics get going) they will strike. And when they strike, they will have sailing ships, cavalry, steel, and gunpowder.

 

[Taunay]

And blaming conquistadors on Cortes is getting too much into "great man" history. Even if Cortes is defeated, the Spanish and other Europeans will continue to press at native states because that is what they do. They did not live in our modern world with (at least attempts at) respect for other cultures. They lived in a world where "might makes right" and "right of conquest" were accepted law. When they sense weakness (which they will, especially once the smallpox epidemics get going) they will strike. And when they strike, they will have sailing ships, cavalry, steel, and gunpowder.

They could still just trade with the natives, like Portugal did with many African kingdoms

 

[kholieken]

They could still just trade with the natives, like Portugal did with many African kingdoms

African kingdoms are strong, Portugal have no power to outright conquer them. Its not because Portugal is more benevolent.

 

[Vinization]

If the Purépecha were better set up to avoid Spanish conquest, why was their defeat so quick, easy, and complete that most history's don't even bother to talk about it? This kind of thinking reminds me of people who argue that longbows were superior to early gunpowder weapons when every state in Europe abandoned bow weapons for gunpowder weapons. If you analysis leads you to conclusions that are very different from history, it is more likely that your analysis is wrong than history was.

Because by the time they came in contact the Aztecs were already subjugated, so the Spanish won before the first shot was fired. Plus, Tangaxuan chose to surrender and become a vassal.

And blaming conquistadors on Cortes is getting too much into "great man" history. Even if Cortes is defeated, the Spanish and other Europeans will continue to press at native states because that is what they do. They did not live in our modern world with (at least attempts at) respect for other cultures. They lived in a world where "might makes right" and "right of conquest" were accepted law. When they sense weakness (which they will, especially once the smallpox epidemics get going) they will strike. And when they strike, they will have sailing ships, cavalry, steel, and gunpowder.

Or, if that weakness doesn't show up or is dealt with before they can take advantage, they'll try to get the precious metals they want without waging war.

 

[TRH]

Or, if that weakness doesn't show up or is dealt with before they can take advantage, they'll try to get the precious metals they want without waging war.

Losing the majority of your population to smallpox isn’t something that can be dealt with easily or quickly. And by not quickly, I mean not for generations if ever.

 

[Taunay]

Because by the time they came in contact the Aztecs were already subjugated, so the Spanish won before the first shot was fired. Plus, Tangaxuan chose to surrender and become a vassal.

Exactly. Spanish conquest was not some inevitable thing that was always meant to happen.

 

[Vinization]

Losing the majority of your population to smallpox isn’t something that can be dealt with easily or quickly. And by not quickly, I mean not for generations if ever.

Those losses were exacerbated by years of warfare and forced labor.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Those losses were exacerbated by years of warfare and forced labor.

But were still considerable even without those factors. And would cause massive disruptions as they did in the Inca Empire. A more centralised polity would arguably be hit even harder, especially if the ruling class is hit to a large degree. One way or another, the plagues will give the Europeans a window of opportunity. Not to mention that these plagues came in repeated waves that had devastating effects up into the modern age.

And, as someone previously mentioned, Cortez failing will change nothing. He wasn't the first Conquistador and will not be the last, especially if Pizarro is as successful as in OTL. And there will always be other tribes/confederations/realms that will seek alliances with these men to gain an advantage over their rivals.

All in all, the timeline of the process might look different but you will definitely need greater and earlier changes to create an outcome where Europeans don't colonise and/or dominate Mesoamerica to a considerable degree.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

As for Azcapotzalco, it may be able to use the fall of the Aztecs to their advantage but could also fall as a result of this infighting. It really depends on how quickly and firmly it crushes the future Triple Alliance, the cost of said effort and the reaction of outside forces. Even in the best case its rulers could opt for a more centralised, regional approach and remain mostly centered on the valley.